Great thought actually !......................How many people realize that there was at one time NO trees in the sound at all. This place was covered in ice !!!! The hood canal was cut by receding glaciers from the north in Canada ! So if it were not for Warming trends on the planet we would have no puget sound to protect because we would not even be living here in the first place !!! We would have no fish, no lakes, no rivers, no deer in the woods because the woods did not exist , NOTHING ! So for the alarmists out there and the sheep that follow them....................you better have you fun now, because you are going to look like a fool in the future !! :rofl: When will some people learn we have NO CONTROL over mother earth. Just don't shit in your backyard and we will be fine. :thumb:

If you all are so sure global warming is a non issue why do you spend all this time ranting about it. I supose you're not gay either.

Click to expand...

If you are going to try and insult someone you should at least get your spelling right.

Meanwhile this just came to light yesterday.......

Head of 'Climategate' research unit admits he hid data - because it was 'standard practice'

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 6:49 PM on 01st March 2010

The scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' row over global warming hid data 'because it was standard practice', it emerged today.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's prestigious climatic research unit, today admitted to MPs that the centre withheld raw station data about global temperatures from around the world.

The world-renowned research unit has been under fire since private emails, which sceptics claimed showed evidence of scientists manipulating climate data, were hacked from the university's server and posted online.

On the spot: Professor Phil Jones being grilled by the Science and Technology committee in the Commons today

Now, an independent probe is examining allegations stemming from the emails that scientists hid, manipulated or deleted data to exaggerate the case for man-made global warming.

Prof Jones today said it was not 'standard practice' in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.

He also said the scientific journals which had published his papers had never asked to see it.

Appearing before the committee's hearing into the disclosure of data from the CRU alongside Prof Jones, the university's vice chancellor Prof Edward Acton said he had not seen any evidence of flaws in the overall science of climate change - but said he was planning this week to announce the chair of a second independent inquiry, which will look into the science produced at CRU.

Challenged about one email in which he tells a sceptic he does not want to give him data because it will be misused, Prof Jones admitted: 'I have obviously written some pretty awful emails'.

But Prof Jones insisted the scientific findings on climate change were robust and verifiable.

And he said 80 per cent of the raw data used to create a series of average global temperatures showing that the world was getting warmer, along with methodology from the Met Office - but not CRU - on how the average temperatures were calculated, had been released.

According to the University of East Anglia (UEA) much of the data could not have been released without the permission of the countries which generated the information - and that while the majority had now allowed the figures to be released, a handful had refused to let CRU publish it.

Prof Jones said a 'deluge' of Freedom of Information requests last July had prompted the unit - which has only three full time staff - to try and get more of the data released.

The circumstances surrounding the emails are also the subject of an inquiry commissioned by the university, and separately by Norfolk police.

For all you skeptics about global warming. I suggest watching the documentary with Leonardo DiCaprio called The 11th Hour. (2007) Then you can decide to quack more nonsense. You can watch it "instantly" on NETFLIX.

"Actor Leonardo DiCaprio's documentary on the global environmental crisis paints a portrait of a planet at risk while also offering some exciting and radical solutions for making life on earth sustainable. Tapping the brains of leading scientists and thinkers -- including Stephen Hawking and Mikhail Gorbachev -- the film ultimately delivers a hopeful message: Our planet may be in crisis, but that doesn't mean it's too late change."

I clearly remember seeing a graphical representation of this data (somewhere), and it does indeed appear that we are currently spiking on the higher end of the planet's recent historical temp range.
The vast geologic time-span involved makes it a bit hard to predict anything meaningful in the near term, as far as shorter term trends go. Will the Earth's temps keep rising for another 100, 400, or 1,000, or??? years before the "trend" reverses? Who the heck knows? People who try to predict these things are just trying to sell their books, hoping for a best seller so they can retire early and go fishing mid-week.

One of my own ridiculously absurd theories on the subject (I have a few, based on pure conjecture) is just as hairbrained as the Gaia Hypothesis, and that our Mother Earth is currently suffering a skin disease, and we are the pathogens. Mother Earth is developing a fever, to raise her temp enough to kill the pathogens off, and then she will get back to 98.6 when the pathogens (we humans) are exfoliated.

Another is purely mechanical, with no religious cult overtones. The Earth is a self-regulating system. According to the charts, its about time for something to kick in and slow the warming trend, and then reverse it. Factor out the El Ninos, La Ninas, the PDO, and all the other cycles that often act as countercycles and look at the larger trend. Spiking to warmer!
So if the current warming trend continues so that more polar ice melts in the Arctic, and strangely, the ice pack simultaneously builds in the Antarctic, and the net effect is strangely causing the sea level to rise, then the result may be that the pressure exerted on the earths crust will change in various locations (more weight over the sea floor, less weight over the N Pole, etc...). this might play havoc on certain fault lines and cause earthquakes and start up volcanic activity, lots of volcanic activity, with the result of a "nuclear winter" scenario developing, cooling the planet back down or even sending us into an "ice age."

Awwwww, heck! I forgot to factor in the switching of the Earth's magnetic field. Dang! Never mind!

WTF!!!! Your guess is as good as mine! However, I'm trying to stay cool!

Blow up your TV and never pollute the air around you with radio talk show tripe.

For all you skeptics about global warming. I suggest watching the documentary with Leonardo DiCaprio called The 11th Hour. (2007) Then you can decide to quack more nonsense. You can watch it "instantly" on NETFLIX.

"Actor Leonardo DiCaprio's documentary on the global environmental crisis paints a portrait of a planet at risk while also offering some exciting and radical solutions for making life on earth sustainable. Tapping the brains of leading scientists and thinkers -- including Stephen Hawking and Mikhail Gorbachev -- the film ultimately delivers a hopeful message: Our planet may be in crisis, but that doesn't mean it's too late change."

Click to expand...

I think the public has tired of being told by disingenuous, wealthy, hypocritical movie stars that the world is going to come to an end if they don't stop driving automobiles and heating their homes during winter. The movie talks about deforestation, however, according to the Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace , what we need to do is use more wood, for a few reasons, one, when the forest grows back, it is shown that young forests that outperform old growth in carbon sequestration, two, the wood table built one hundred years ago, still has the carbon locked up in it, and 3, since the forests are renewable they are a better building material than concrete, steel or glass, all 3 of which create more CO2 than using wood.

According to Reid Bryson, the 87-year-old considered to be the father of scientific climatology, has once again spoken out strongly against anthropogenic global warming theories being regularly disseminated by alarmists in the media and the scientific community.
In an interview published by Wisconsin’s Capital Times, Bryson spoke about the money involved in this "religion," and when asked about soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" marvelously responded (emphasis added throughout):
"Don't make me throw up...It is not science. It is not true."

Jim,
"I think the public has tired of being told by disingenuous, wealthy, hypocritical movie stars..."

And the public isn't tired of following the same old-world order and it's neoclassical approaches to new world problems? I sure as hell am! Jim, Ted, BlkTail, have a look at the link below. If this isn't a clear correlation between Co2 in the atmosphere and earth temperatures, what is? Before you say "coincidence" or "false science" remember that only minor changes are needed to cause dramatic effects. You'd better be damn sure that your point of view is correct because if its not, and we continue on the path we're on, there will be hell to pay.

I am not the one saying it, people far more knowledgible than I are saying it.

The thing I am trying to avoid is the manipulation of those that use this as a vehicle for their own benefit.
Should we be polluting rivers-NO, use bad forest practices-NO, dirty the air so its harmful for breathing-NO, harvest beyond the ability of resources to sustain themselves-NO, but man made global warming falderal-that dog just don't hunt, and who is profitting from it, people like Mr. Gore (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html) . The eco-industrialists that benefit off of the hysteria centered around global warming are laughing in their Lear Jets.

"Should we be polluting rivers-NO, use bad forest practices-NO, dirty the air so its harmful for breathing-NO, harvest beyond the ability of resources to sustain themselves-NO"

You are saying that we shouldn't feed the hysteria. I see your point. But why feed the corporations that do all of the things on your laundry list above?

"The thing I am trying to avoid is the manipulation of those that use this as a vehicle for their own benefit." Big business, pro consumption leaders are all about personal gain. I'm not worried about Al Gore's DVD sales, I'm worried about lumber companies who destroy our watersheds, factories that produce disposable goods (to feed our country's consumption) and in the meantime pollute our rivers, and oil barons/motor companies who push the last of their oil supply to make enormous gains (while polluting the air).

These people are far more powerful than Al Gore and Leonardo Dicaprio and use the degradation of the environment as a vehicle for their own benefit.

I'm not worried. Its not that I don't care. Its just that I live on the coast, and according to seismological experts, there's an 80% chance of a huge subduction zone quake here, on the order of 9.1 Richter Scale, in the next 50 years. The resulting tsunami would be a t least 10 feet and completely wipe out the coastal area in which I reside. Realistically, by the time the tsunami warning sirens go off, there will be less than 15 minutes to make high ground. That's less than 15 minutes to grab your survival items, get in your vehicle and drive there. I won't wait for any sirens. A big quake, I'll grab some cliff bars, bananas and water, a sleeping bag and parka, whatever else I can grab running out the door, then jump in my rig and drive the 3 miles to Bunker Hill.
This makes every other climate change and changing sea level problem moot, from my point of view, until I move to the hills!

"Should we be polluting rivers-NO, use bad forest practices-NO, dirty the air so its harmful for breathing-NO, harvest beyond the ability of resources to sustain themselves-NO"

You are saying that we shouldn't feed the hysteria. I see your point. But why feed the corporations that do all of the things on your laundry list above?

"The thing I am trying to avoid is the manipulation of those that use this as a vehicle for their own benefit." Big business, pro consumption leaders are all about personal gain. I'm not worried about Al Gore's DVD sales, I'm worried about lumber companies who destroy our watersheds, factories that produce disposable goods (to feed our country's consumption) and in the meantime pollute our rivers, and oil barons/motor companies who push the last of their oil supply to make enormous gains (while polluting the air).

These people are far more powerful than Al Gore and Leonardo Dicaprio and use the degradation of the environment as a vehicle for their own benefit.

"Time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and start drinking more beer."

Classic head-in-the-sand mentality.

Click to expand...

Its not so much going after "the corporations that do all of those things" that is the answer, because I sense you look at going after the corporations. Corporations are nothing more than a group of people working together to compete against other groups of people providing products and services to the marketplace. About the only corporations you "go after" are american ones, but that really wouldn't solve the problem would it, it would wreck our economy while bolstering non-american companies. besides, there are enough laws already on the books to deal with polluters. I dont have the numbers but billions have been spent on superfund clean ups and environmental laws that are incredibly restrictive, and the only people really profiting from this are the lawyers.

If you want to go after anyone, you need to educate the marketplace on where they get their products and under what conditions those products were made. This will affect the corporations bottom line, rather than feed a bunch of lawyers.

I completely agree. Educating the public is by far the best thing we can do. Unfortunately, most business leaders and politicians on both sides of the aisle don't want this to happen. You're right on that we can't just quit buying goods from American companies. As a matter of fact, I think we need to support American companies as much as possible, we just need to be careful which ones we're supporting. I think the biggest form of protest you can accomplish comes in the form of how you spend your dollars. Education is key but there has been a fairly steady decline in the way the Americans view education over the past few decades. Oh yeah, and advertisers and companies are getting better at creating false images and covering up information that would be useful to the public. Conscious citizens are getting harder and harder to come by and that will be very detrimental for this country moving forward. Lawyers are a greedy bunch but they have their place in society. Good lawyers exist, its just that they are about as rare as wild steelhead these days. What a shame...